happygirl165: I think that sometimes film adaptations can stretch your imagination, especially if you read the book before watching the movie.

This can show you how others view the book and other points of view. I found that if you really enjoyed a book it can also extend the book and make it last longer. On the other hand, if it is a bad interpretation then it can ruin what you thought of the book or can gives good books a bad reputation. I think the most important thing, though, is to read the book before watching the film.

SaiWish0221: The adaptation also ruins your mental picture of the character.

Film adaptations ruin the book for me. I really think the whole story is alteredto please the audience. For example, in the film adaptation ''Harry Potter and the Half- Blood Prince'', the details of the story are jumbled and omitted. To give an instance, such an important scene as Dumbledore's funeral is omitted in the film. This scene is the basis for Harry leaving Hogwarts and not returning for his seventh year.

The adaptation also ruins your mental picture of the character. It gives a feeling that masterpieces are being put under the guillotine by the screen. I understand that it is pretty hard to bring out the original details in an eight hundred page book. However, when the story line gets modified it is a great injustice to the book.

thelisabee: Do Film Adaptations Ruin The Books For You? It depends.

I read Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief before I saw the film, and got really angry with the film, because it didn't stick to the story. The person who recommended the book to me agreed, but my friend who hadn't read the book, really enjoyed it. So really, that film adaptation ruined the film for me, because I had the book fresh in my mind when I saw it and kept on thinking about how different it was.

owever, watching the most recent Harry Potters, I reread the books and really enjoyed the them, but I can only imagine Harry looking like Daniel Radcliffe. The same applies to the first in the His Dark Materials series.

When we read The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas in class, my English teacher also showed us the film, which I think ruined it a bit. Also, we had to write an essay on how clothing is a symbol in the book and some people thought we had to write an essay on the film!

What I like with some adaptations is when it's a sequel to the book (like Alice in Wonderland, Tim Burton style (2010) or a prequel to the book (like Finding Netherland, 2004) or when they make classics into something more modern like She's the Man (an adaptation of Twelfth Night, Shakespeare) and 10 Things I Hate About You (an adaptation of Taming of the Shrew) because the screenwriters only use the basis of the story as a guideline and have to use their originality.

So, do film adaptations ruin the books for me? Not ruin as such, they more affect the book in various ways for me.

Conqueror_1337: books are better for the imagination

Film adaptations usually ruin the book, as the filmmakers edit the storyline and remove most of the imagination, whereas with a book you can imagine the landscape to be anything that matches the description. When I was nine I started reading Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, and I found it a suitable book, as it was just fantasy. When I watched the film, however, I found it more disturbing to see real actors playing the parts of the characters. Since then I have tried to read the book or an eBook before seeing the film. On the other hand, I recently read The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, and found it rather hard to follow. But when I watched the movie I could follow it perfectly.

Alexander: the book is more true to the story

I have read the books and watched the films of both Harry Potter and Sherlock Holmes. The earlier Basil Rathbone film series of Sherlock Holmes was brilliant whereas the newer ones I don't think are realistic to Sherlock's character as I find him in the books.

I really liked the Harry Potter series and adaptations, they were excellent. I don't always read a book first before seeing a film but I prefer to read the book first if I don't know the story already. I think reading a book first is a good idea because the book is more realistic to the true story and sometimes in films they skip bits, which I don't like at all.

Tara: why rehash a novel when you could create an original screenplay?

Watching your favourite book being slaughtered on screen provokes the same feeling of dread that washes over you as you watch a hopeless X Factor contestant screech a song you like in entirely the wrong key. Having been captivated by the story of The Great Gatsby as part of my English course, and then forced to sit through the 1974 film adaptation of the book, I can safely say that the written word isn't always enhanced by transition to the silver screen. Robert Redford, in the title role, was about as wooden as a pine furniture set and, unfortunately, the memory of his star turn has rather hindered my enjoyment of the novel upon repeat readings.

It is by no means an easy task to strike a balance between appealing to fans of the novel, and involving those members of the audience who haven't read it. Invariably, some material will have to be cut, yet this may prove to be either a blessing or a curse; separating the wheat from the chaff, or missing the point of the novel entirely. In an era of cinema where drama is primarily used to provoke an emotional response, rather than to stimulate thought or engage one's capacity for imagination, the finer subtleties of a novel are often lost in a dizzying haze of bright lights, fast cars and CGI upon transferral to film, Andrew Adamson's The Chronicles of Narnia being just one of a cornucopia of examples of this that come to mind.

The quality of a novel is dictated by the talent of its writer, yet when the idea of a film is discussed, many more factors come into play. Not only must the adaptation be helmed by a competent director – a skilled script writer and talented ensemble cast are also necessary to ensure a movie's success. With that in mind, some argue that a film adaptation of a novel can only ever be as good as its source material, yet this isn't necessarily the case. Danny Boyle's remarkable, vibrant Slumdog Millionaire was among a handful of films which proved that, in the right hands, stories can come to life on screen in a way they don't in print – scenes that simply wouldn't work on paper take on a new dimension once they reach cinemas. The vitality and colour of daily life in Mumbai was conveyed by the film, yet wasn't evoked by Q&A, the book upon which it was based. While Boyle's story is as rare as it is inspiring, there have been a handful of successful adaptations in the past few years. The recent Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows (Part One) defied convention, in that, hyped as the novel was, the film lived up to its reputation. This franchise also displays the power of cinema, in that often it reaches an audience far greater than the original book – now even those who may have walked past the novel if they saw it sitting on a bookshelf have found themselves enchanted by the story of the boy from Hogwarts.

Yet, for the most part, I'm inclined to think that cinema and literature work best independently of each other – why rehash a novel when you could focus your efforts on creating an original screenplay? Despite the fact that the financial incentives for both filmmakers and novelists are vast when it comes to considering book to movie adaptations, one must remember that it's not always the best books that make the best films.

Charlie: characters are brought to life in front of you and you are gripped by the story unfolding, unable to look away

The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas was a truly haunting book but it was nothing compared to the film; which is the best adaption of a children's book I have ever seen.

The book was brilliant in the sense it overflowed with the naivety and innocence of Bruno. Bruno is the main character in the story and is only nine years old. The book is set in the second world war and surrounds the events of the Holocaust, the events are all seen through the eyes of a little boy which is what makes this book so different. All Bruno knows is his father, who is Commandent in the German Army, is taking them all to a place called Out-With to live. He feels lonely and isolated in this very boring place where there is no-one to play with. However, he befriends a boy on the other side of a strange wire fence who appears to wear striped pyjamas. There are scenes in the book which are quite upsetting but the magic of cinema is that everything is much more real and so much more emotive as these characters are brought to life in front of you and you are gripped by the story unfolding, unable to look away. This is why I love film adaptions so much. The film stays loyal to the book throughout, though the ending is changed slightly to make it more dramatic and I agree with the change as the message of the story is made much clearer and stronger.

The book, while not an easy subject to read about, and the film, which was not at times easy to watch, portrays a strong and worthwhile message and is one that should be compulsive reading in secondary schools – it stays with you long after you leave the cinema or put the book back on the shelf.

Joe: if I know that there is a book of the film I will always try to read it before I see the film

I love film adaptations from books but I prefer to have read the books first. My favorite film adaptions are Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part one and The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe. Film adaptations don't ruin films for me unless I haven't read the book before I have seen the film. If I know that there is a book of the film I will always try to read it before I see the film. The one things I hate about film adaptions is when they cut out exciting main parts. Most film adaptations are brilliant and live up to my expectations. The one that disappointed me mostly was Harry Potter and the prisoner of Azkaban. It wasn't very exciting and it missed out some of the scenes that I like.

OlivahJami: more often than not I'll prefer to read the book version of it and let the events play out in my own head

One of my favourite books it seems has been turned into a film more times than I can count with each different director having a new spin and taking it in a new direction. The book which I am talking about is Alice in Wonderland.

Ever since I was little Alice in Wonderland used to be a book that amazed me and baffled me all at the same time. The story of Alice's journey down the Rabbit Hole, meeting the White Rabbit, the Queen of Hearts and all of Wonderland's cast has enchanted me always, to the point I regularly tried digging to Wonderland in the garden, convinced every time that I'd get there eventually.

I've seen quite a few of the adaptations ranging from the popular Disney version, the version with Whoopie Goldberg as the Cheshire Cat and the most recent adaptation directed by Tim Burton. The last one has to be my all time favourite, as when I watched it and saw Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter, Helena Bonham Carter as the Red Queen and Anne Hathaway as the White Queen I thought to myself "Well, why hasn't anybody thought of this before?

Wasn't it blindingly obvious?"

It may have something to do with my slight obsession of Tim Burton's films but I find that Alice in Wonderland (2010) is the most realistic interpretation of the novel. Parts of it are altered and some new parts added in all together but I found it to be a very enjoyable movie and one that I will count as the few true adaptations of Books to Films.

I've found that the majority of film adaptations of some of my favourite books have become something of a let down. When I heard that Phillip Pullmans His Dark Materials were becoming a film I was ecstatic however the resulting movie, the Golden Compass was one of the worst I've seen. If enough time is spent on adapting books and enough effort put into it I believe that they can sometimes create something truly spectacular, such as Lord of the Rings, but more often than not I'll prefer to read the book version of it and let the events play out in my own head, instead of someone elses.

thetaggerung123: it is a terrible thing to see your favourite book being massacred on the big screen

Yes, when I first read the book I will always be very excited for the movie to come out, but most of the time, when they do come out, I get a huge disappointment, because the film producers always leave out crucial bits and pretty much change the whole story line. For example, The Percy Jackson and The Olympians book series was awesome but when the movie came out they had left out, such as, Clarisse, the Ares cabin girl who Percy "accidentally" sends a wave of toilet water at ( Percy being the son of Poseidon). I really think it is a terrible thing to see your favourite book being massacred on the big screen. Plus, the movie will probably alter your thinking of the book, for better or for worse.

Penguin: I find films spoil the book for me because they leave a bad taste in my mouth

Most of the time I don't like seeing my favourite books made into films because they usually change the sequence of events and miss out what I think are key parts.

I find films spoil the book for me because they leave a bad taste in my mouth and make me less inclined to re-read the book. I especially did not like The Golden Compass as it differed hugely from the book (even the name!). Two exceptions are Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings because they follow the plots and characters carefully.

pinkbookworm: I think film adaptations really do ruin your imagination

Once you have seen the film adaptation, the book is no longer fun to read because you can't imagine what the characters are like, such as the way they look or the way they behave. Reading a book, to me, is like being in the story with the characters and sharing the moments with them, but watching the film is just watching someone else's version of the story. Don't get me wrong, there are some great film adaptations, but I always prefer to read the book first.

lilybelle: I like reading books before watching the film

I like imagining the pictures in my head and if I watch the film before, it ruins all that.